Comparison of recommendations for screening mammography using CISNET models

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138386/1/cncr30842.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138386/2/cncr30842_am.pd

Digital vs screen-film mammography in population-based breast cancer screening:performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers

Background: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast cancer screening programs due to technological advantages such as possibilities to adjust contrast, better image quality and transfer capabilities. This study describes the performance indicators during the transition from SFM to FFDM and the characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers. Methods: Data of the Dutch breast cancer screening program, region North from 2004 to 2010 were linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 902 868). Performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared between FFDM and SFM. Results: After initial screens, recall rates were 2.1% (SFM) and 3.0% (FFDM; P <0.001). The positive predictive values (PPV) were 25.6% (SFM) and 19.9% (FFDM; P = 0.002). Detection rates were similar, as were all performance indicators after subsequent screens. Similar percentages of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were found for SFM and FFDM. Invasive cancers diagnosed after subsequent screens with FFDM were more often of high-grade (P = 0.024) and ductal type (P = 0.030). The incidence rates of interval cancers were similar for SFM and FFDM after initial (2.69/1000 vs 2.51/1000; P = 0.787) and subsequent screens (2.30 vs 2.41; P = 0.652), with similar tumour characteristics. Conclusions: FFDM resulted in similar rates of screen-detected and interval cancers, indicating that FFDM performs as well as SFM in a breast cancer screening program. No signs of an increase in low-grade DCIS (which might connote possible overdiagnosis) were seen. Nonetheless, after initial screening, which accounts for 12% of all screens, FFDM resulted in higher recall rate and lower PPV that requires attention

Text-message reminders increase uptake of routine breast screening appointments : a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population

Background: There is a need for interventions to promote uptake of breast screening throughout Europe. Methods: We performed a single-blind randomised controlled trial to test whether text-message reminders were effective. Two thousand two hundred and forty women receiving their first breast screening invitation were included in the study and randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive either a normal invitation only (n=1118) or a normal invitation plus a text-message reminder 48 h before their appointment (n=1122). Findings: In the intention-to-treat analysis, uptake of breast screening was 59.1% among women in the normal invitation group and 64.4% in the text-message reminder group (χ2=6.47, odds ratio (OR): 1.26, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.05–1.48, P=0.01). Of the 1122 women assigned to the text-message reminder group, only 456 (41%) had a mobile number recorded by their GP and were thereby sent a text. In the per-protocol analysis, uptake by those in the control group who had a mobile number recorded on the GP system was 59.77% and by those in the intervention group who were sent a reminder 71.7% (χ2=14.12, OR=1.71, 95% CI=1.29–2.26, P<0.01). Interpretation: Sending women a text-message reminder before their first routine breast screening appointment significantly increased attendance. This information can be used to allocate resources efficiently to improve uptake without exacerbating social inequalities

Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes

© 2014 Glover et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background - Building on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes. Methods - To assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters. Results - In 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes. Conclusions - We have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute of Health Research, and the Academy of Medical Sciences

The science of clinical practice: disease diagnosis or patient prognosis? Evidence about "what is likely to happen" should shape clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis is the traditional basis for decision-making in clinical practice. Evidence is often lacking about future benefits and harms of these decisions for patients diagnosed with and without disease. We propose that a model of clinical practice focused on patient prognosis and predicting the likelihood of future outcomes may be more useful. DISCUSSION: Disease diagnosis can provide crucial information for clinical decisions that influence outcome in serious acute illness. However, the central role of diagnosis in clinical practice is challenged by evidence that it does not always benefit patients and that factors other than disease are important in determining patient outcome. The concept of disease as a dichotomous 'yes' or 'no' is challenged by the frequent use of diagnostic indicators with continuous distributions, such as blood sugar, which are better understood as contributing information about the probability of a patient's future outcome. Moreover, many illnesses, such as chronic fatigue, cannot usefully be labelled from a disease-diagnosis perspective. In such cases, a prognostic model provides an alternative framework for clinical practice that extends beyond disease and diagnosis and incorporates a wide range of information to predict future patient outcomes and to guide decisions to improve them. Such information embraces non-disease factors and genetic and other biomarkers which influence outcome. SUMMARY: Patient prognosis can provide the framework for modern clinical practice to integrate information from the expanding biological, social, and clinical database for more effective and efficient care

Effect of population breast screening on breast cancer mortality up to 2005 in England and Wales: an individual-level cohort study.

Background Population breast screening has been implemented in the UK for over 25 years, but the size of benefit attributable to such programmes remains controversial. We have conducted the first individual-based cohort evaluation of population breast screening in the UK, to estimate the impact of the NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) on breast cancer mortality.Methods We followed 988 090 women aged 49-64 years in 1991 resident in England and Wales, who because of the staggered implementation of the NHSBSP, included both invited subjects and an uninvited control group. Individual-level breast screening histories were linked to individual-level mortality and breast cancer incidence data from national registers. Risk of death from breast cancer was investigated by incidence-based mortality analyses in relation to intention to screen and first round attendance. Overdiagnosis of breast cancer following a single screening round was also investigated.Results Invitation to NHSBSP screening was associated with a reduction in breast cancer mortality in 1991-2005 of 21% (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.73-0.84, P<0·001) after adjustment for age, socioeconomic status and lead-time. Breast cancer deaths among first invitation attenders were 46% lower than among non-attenders (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.51-0·57, P<0.001) and 32% lower following adjustment for age, socioeconomic status and self-selection bias (RR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.63-0·73, P<0.001). There was little evidence of overdiagnosis associated with invitation to first screen.Conclusions The results indicate a substantial, statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality between 1991 and 2005 associated with NHSBSP activity. This is important in public health terms